Joshua Filler. Damn!

[ShootingArts]

No disrespect intended, but your post sounds like subjective opinion to me; to me break cues, template racks and 10b - are all very similar arguments - also evolutions of 9b to limit/enrichen the game in various debatable ways. Your comments on break cues to "preserve the game's fundamental equipment" also applies to jumping - having proper equipment to jump vs trying to jump a close OB with a full player - also preserves tips and cloth - in either case, for skilled players - it's a non issue. Despite your longevity around the game and authoritarian tone above, apparently & obviously the vast majority of pro pool world disagrees with you. As far as I know, it's mostly only lower level bar leagues and APA type crowds that officially ban jump cues - given that most amateurs can't jump and will tear up the table when trying to do so with any cue, it's a somewhat reasonable provision for them - but extrapolating that out as "cheapening the game" in high-level/pro pool - to me seems subjectively silly.

Anyway, no need for conflict - no one is resolving this young-gun vs greybeard debate anytime soon. Given that all modern pros and vast majority of old pros can both kick and jump lights out, it all seems like a moot point to me. Thanks for sharing your perspectives. Peace & love

You are probably too young to remember but jumping by striking down on the cue ball has always been legal dating back to as long as I can remember and Stu and I are the same age within a year or two. He is mistaken about scooping, at least in my neck of the world. Scooping was illegal because it could totally destroy a cloth in one shot, creating a rip over a foot long!

A youngster came along by name of Earl Strickland. The game was still mostly two foul pushout and he could jump effectively with a full size, full weight, cue. He was so effective that he would push out and you were faced with two options, either try a tough kick or give the shot back to him and watch him jump over the intervening ball and run out. No exaggeration to say Earl was alone in his jumping skills and often won taking advantage of them. Earl was unwillingly the father of the jump cue. It was the only way the rest of the field could catch up with Earl, or try to.

When jump cues started becoming a factor those playing against them regularly didn't have an option but to buy jump cues and join the crowd. Doesn't mean all the people using jump cues like them, especially those that started using them fifteen years or so ago. It was a matter of survival.

While I too am not going to get my nose out of joint arguing about something none of us are going to change, I too think the jump cue, or Earl, fundamentally changed the game and not for the better. I think pool is more fun and more exciting as a two dimensional game. Also, I don't have to dodge balls flying off of surrounding tables!

I have been getting side-tracked a lot lately and found the text below still waiting to be posted from several days ago.

Hu


(written a day or two ago)
While they were rarely seen I think a jump rod would outjump any jump cue made. I think they are the reason for the minimum length rule for a jump cue. A simple bar sixteen or eighteen inches long with a tip glued on. The bars were made out of aluminum or stainless. Anyone wanting to use one of these in a gambling match asked if it was legal first. I always allowed it, never ran into anyone real proficient with it. It would jump like a sumbitch but people weren't usually real accurate with it.

The early years of the jump cue were much the same. When a player went to a jump cue it almost always benefitted the other player. Things have changed now though. People are jumping with control, the jump cue has became an effective tool for the best and the top players have to be able to use it to be on an equal playing field. I have to admit I dislike all the jumping. Pool was meant to be a two dimensional game. Still too may balls flying off the table to disturb other players.

 

[phreaticus]

You are probably too young to remember but jumping by striking down on the cue ball has always been legal dating back to as long as I can remember and Stu and I are the same age within a year or two. He is mistaken about scooping, at least in my neck of the world. Scooping was illegal because it could totally destroy a cloth in one shot, creating a rip over a foot long!

A youngster came along by name of Earl Strickland. The game was still mostly two foul pushout and he could jump effectively with a full size, full weight, cue. He was so effective that he would push out and you were faced with two options, either try a tough kick or give the shot back to him and watch him jump over the intervening ball and run out. No exaggeration to say Earl was alone in his jumping skills and often won taking advantage of them. Earl was unwillingly the father of the jump cue. It was the only way the rest of the field could catch up with Earl, or try to.

When jump cues started becoming a factor those playing against them regularly didn't have an option but to buy jump cues and join the crowd. Doesn't mean all the people using jump cues like them, especially those that started using them fifteen years or so ago. It was a matter of survival.

While I too am not going to get my nose out of joint arguing about something none of us are going to change, I too think the jump cue, or Earl, fundamentally changed the game and not for the better. I think pool is more fun and more exciting as a two dimensional game. Also, I don't have to dodge balls flying off of surrounding tables!

I have been getting side-tracked a lot lately and found the text below still waiting to be posted from several days ago.

Hu


(written a day or two ago)
While they were rarely seen I think a jump rod would outjump any jump cue made. I think they are the reason for the minimum length rule for a jump cue. A simple bar sixteen or eighteen inches long with a tip glued on. The bars were made out of aluminum or stainless. Anyone wanting to use one of these in a gambling match asked if it was legal first. I always allowed it, never ran into anyone real proficient with it. It would jump like a sumbitch but people weren't usually real accurate with it.

The early years of the jump cue were much the same. When a player went to a jump cue it almost always benefitted the other player. Things have changed now though. People are jumping with control, the jump cue has became an effective tool for the best and the top players have to be able to use it to be on an equal playing field. I have to admit I dislike all the jumping. Pool was meant to be a two dimensional game. Still too may balls flying off the table to disturb other players.

I'm a touch over 50, when I started playing in mid 80's (i quit in 1995 and just started up again 2 yrs ago ish) jumping with house cues was already a thing. Two foul was still around a bit, but mostly all gone and all 9b was texas express style by then. I've heard the Earl genesis of jumping history before, it's a cool part of pool's evolution. I'm also more proficient than most with jumping with a full size cue, but that has its limits. No one is really jumping OBs < 1 diamond away from the CB with full size playing cues. Of course jump cues enable an entirely different range of vertical shots/escapes - but its not like jump cues automagically provide this skill - its still super tough to pull off the range of controlled jump shots we see pros regularly make. As an aside, most casual players and even some pros often try to jump when a kick was the smarter move - in fact, most jumps that I see most folks do even with jump cues end up in fouls, or wildly uncontrolled outcomes anway. Similarly, specialized break cues/tips and cue extensions also enable types of shots and performance that can't be done with standard house/player cues - yet I don't see folks rail against them like folks do on jump cues.

Obviously we all have our preferences/perspectives, usually tied to our early formative years be it music, pool or cars. My point is just that I don't understand why some consider jumping with dedicated jump cues to be such a blasphemy to the "spirit of the sport". Aside from the points already made, here is a genuine question for folks with more age/knowledge in the game than I have. All current jump cues are well within BCA/WPA min/max size/weight ranges... so it seems hard to call them out as being detrimental to the game vs break cues & extensions which also fit within these specs. I'm not sure when BCA/WPA specs first came about... So my question is this: back when lighter/shorter dedicated jump cues first came on the scene - was there any notion of standardized specs for a pool cue? If so, what were those specs?

Thanks

 

[AtLarge]

what you are discussing was actually the rules of the WPS events that darren had

Well, not exactly. Darren had 8 events. I don't think I watched his 9-Ball event (event #5), so I don't know the jumping rules in that one. But I watched all or parts of the other 7 events. My notes indicate the following.

• In the 2 10-Ball events (#6 and #8), I'm not sure he had any limitations on the use of jump sticks.​

• In the 5 8-Ball events he experimented quite a bit:​

- Event #1 -- A jump cue was allowed only after the opponent's shot, with a limit of 2 times per player per game.​

- Events #2 and #3 -- A jump cue was allowed only after the opponent's shot, with a limit of 3 times per player per match in the double-elimination portion of the event and once per set in the single-elimination portion.​

- Event #4 -- A jump cue was allowed only after the opponent's shot, with limits of 2 times (races to 9) or 3 times (races to 11) per player per match.​

- Event #7 -- Jumping was allowed only with the playing cue.​

 

[ShootingArts]

I'm a touch over 50, when I started playing in mid 80's (i quit in 1995 and just started up again 2 yrs ago ish) jumping with house cues was already a thing. Two foul was still around a bit, but mostly all gone and all 9b was texas express style by then. I've heard the Earl genesis of jumping history before, it's a cool part of pool's evolution. I'm also more proficient than most with jumping with a full size cue, but that has its limits. No one is really jumping OBs < 1 diamond away from the CB with full size playing cues. Of course jump cues enable an entirely different range of vertical shots/escapes - but its not like jump cues automagically provide this skill - its still super tough to pull off the range of controlled jump shots we see pros regularly make. As an aside, most casual players and even some pros often try to jump when a kick was the smarter move - in fact, most jumps that I see most folks do even with jump cues end up in fouls, or wildly uncontrolled outcomes anway. Similarly, specialized break cues/tips and cue extensions also enable types of shots and performance that can't be done with standard house/player cues - yet I don't see folks rail against them like folks do on jump cues.

Obviously we all have our preferences/perspectives, usually tied to our early formative years be it music, pool or cars. My point is just that I don't understand why some consider jumping with dedicated jump cues to be such a blasphemy to the "spirit of the sport". Aside from the points already made, here is a genuine question for folks with more age/knowledge in the game than I have. All current jump cues are well within BCA/WPA min/max size/weight ranges... so it seems hard to call them out as being detrimental to the game vs break cues & extensions which also fit within these specs. I'm not sure when BCA/WPA specs first came about... So my question is this: back when lighter/shorter dedicated jump cues came on the scene - was there any notion of standardized specs for a pool cue? If so, what were those specs?

Thanks

Some old specs I wonder about are 66" and 26 ounces maximum. I think some of the extensions might be over both those limits and earl was toting a longer cue for awhile himself I believe.

Jump shots kind of crept into the game. Old books said it was sometimes possible to jump over a portion of an interfering ball. These shots didn't involve the cue ball getting high enough to leave the table very often.

There is another thing about jump shots that rankles a bit, many are fouls, uncalled fouls. original impact and gravity alone can't explain the path of the cue ball. The ferrule or shaft have to strike or push the cue ball. You can find quite a few heated discussions on this from years ago. I have had people claim that they could jump an object ball from a distance of one or two credit cards. Considering the cue ball went up six inches or less you would have to believe in magic, or a foul. Never-the-less, if you don't let people get away with these fouls in a pool hall today it results in tempers flaring.

A handful of reasons I don't like jump cues. Making it loss of game to knock a ball off of the table so that it strikes a surrounding surface would eliminate my biggest grouch. That could apply to all cues.

Hu

 

[sjm]

No disrespect intended, but your post sounds like subjective opinion to me; to me break cues, template racks and 10b - are all very similar arguments - also evolutions of 9b to limit/enrichen the game in various debatable ways. Your comments on break cues to "preserve the game's fundamental equipment" also applies to jumping - having proper equipment to jump vs trying to jump a close OB with a full player - also preserves tips and cloth - in either case, for skilled players - it's a non issue. Despite your longevity around the game and authoritarian tone above, apparently & obviously the vast majority of pro pool world disagrees with you. As far as I know, it's mostly only lower level bar leagues and APA type crowds that officially ban jump cues - given that most amateurs can't jump and will tear up the table when trying to do so with any cue, it's a somewhat reasonable provision for them - but extrapolating that out as "cheapening the game" in high-level/pro pool - to me seems subjectively silly.

Anyway, no need for conflict - no one is resolving this young-gun vs greybeard debate anytime soon. Given that all modern pros and vast majority of old pros can both kick and jump lights out, it all seems like a moot point to me. Thanks for sharing your perspectives. Peace & love

Well said. There's certainly some room for interpretation here and preferences matter a lot. Thanks for sharing your views with clarity and respect. I'm not especially keen on your use of the word authoritarian but I take it lightly and don't find it offensive.

Your suggestion that the jump cue was invented because full cue jumps were tough on the equipment is incorrect. In fact, nine ball as a game has been around for about 80 years, and nobody saw a need for the jump cue in its first 40 years. Even today, it' recognized that jumping is even easier with a really short cue, shorter than the jump cues in use, but the rules require a minimum of 40" for a jump cue. Even in the early 1980s, when nine ball first became the primary pro game, full cue jumps were so rare that you could possibly see an entire tournament in which not a single full cue jump was even attempted, and yes, I was attending tournaments even back then, so this is first-hand information.

Given your statement "it's mostly only lower-level bar leagues and APA type crowds that officially ban jump cues", it's obvious you don't follow the pro tournament scene very closely, for jump cues are not allowed at either Turning Stone or the Derby City Classic, two of the most prestigious events on the American pro pool calendar.

FYI, I've come out in this thread as favoring the use of jump cues, provided it's on the first shot of a player's inning and, in truth, that's when most jumps occur. My only objection to the jump cue is that it has reduced the penalty for position poorly played, but as you correctly note, most favor its permissibility in all situations. Yes, I'm in the minority in wanting to limit its use. I've also said in this very thread that the jump cue is here to stay and that anyone with hopes of becoming an elite player must become proficient in its use, so I think your conclusion that the debate might be moot is well considered.

All that said, in a previous post in this thread, a poster ask me to share my opinion on the jump cue, so I did. As you say, there is no need for conflict. I enjoy comparing thoughts and notes with posters like you and look forward to future interactions. In fact, the posters who take views that are odds with my own have taught me a lot over the years here on AZB.

 

[sjm]

A youngster came along by name of Earl Strickland. The game was still mostly two foul pushout and he could jump effectively with a full size, full weight, cue. He was so effective that he would push out and you were faced with two options, either try a tough kick or give the shot back to him and watch him jump over the intervening ball and run out. No exaggeration to say Earl was alone in his jumping skills and often won taking advantage of them. Earl was unwillingly the father of the jump cue. It was the only way the rest of the field could catch up with Earl, or try to.

Ah, I remember those days well, approximately 1980-81. In fact, the young Earl Strickland had just one peer when it came to the full cue jump shot and that was Sammy Jones of California, who'd become the husband of future Hall of Famer Loree Jon Jones. Very few other players even tried full cue jumps.

The Earl Strickland / Sammy Jones situation brought back memories of Luther Lassiter who was, with reverence, known for pushing out into a shot that he could make but you couldn't (Nick Varner has suggested that Lassiter was the straightest shooter in the game's history).

Earl and Sammy were the fathers of the jump shot, and there's little doubt that their proficiency activated the development of the jump cue. There's a certain irony in the fact that Earl strongly objected to the introduction of the jump cue when it began to come into fairly common use about 25-30 years ago.

Those were the days.

 

[phreaticus]

Well said. There's certainly some room for interpretation here and preferences matter a lot. Thanks for sharing your views with clarity and respect. I'm not especially keen on your use of the word authoritarian but I take it lightly and don't find it offensive.

Your suggestion that the jump cue was invented because full cue jumps were tough on the equipment is incorrect. In fact, nine ball as a game has been around for about 80 years, and nobody saw a need for the jump cue in its first 40 years. Even today, it' recognized that jumping is even easier with a really short cue, shorter than the jump cues in use, but the rules require a minimum of 40" for a jump cue. Even in the early 1980s, when nine ball first became the primary pro game, full cue jumps were so rare that you could possibly see an entire tournament in which not a single full cue jump was even attempted, and yes, I was attending tournaments even back then, so this is first-hand information.

Given your statement "it's mostly only lower-level bar leagues and APA type crowds that officially ban jump cues", it's obvious you don't follow the pro tournament scene very closely, for jump cues are not allowed at either Turning Stone or the Derby City Classic, two of the most prestigious events on the American pro pool calendar.

FYI, I've come out in this thread as favoring the use of jump cues, provided it's on the first shot of a player's inning and, in truth, that's when most jumps occur. My only objection to the jump cue is that it has reduced the penalty for position poorly played, but as you correctly note, most favor its permissibility in all situations. Yes, I'm in the minority in wanting to limit its use. I've also said in this very thread that the jump cue is here to stay and that anyone with hopes of become an elite player must become proficient in its use, so I think your conclusion that the debate might be moot is well considered.

All that said, in a previous post in this thread, a poster ask me to share my opinion on the jump cue, so I did. As you say, there is no need for conflict. I enjoy comparing thoughts and notes with posters like you and look forward to future interactions. In fact, the posters who take views that are odds with my own have taught me a lot over the years here on AZB.

Hi Stu,

Thx for the nice discourse. Sorry, my use of “authoritarian” was indeed too strong, your post just came off that way to me, but you’re always respectful & thoughtful, and that was over stating it.

In spirit of clarification, a few nits/observations.

I didn’t state or mean what you implied I did - “suggestion that the jump cue was invented because full cue jumps were tough on the equipment is incorrect”. I was simply suggesting that to some extent that benefit is also there for jump cues, similar to break cues as you had stated. In scenarios where jumping is allowed, for folks with less than great jump skills, use of a jump cue will likely bring better results for their tips & the table vs attempting it with a house/player cue. Obviously not a major factor though…

With regard to the pro scene, indeed I don’t follow closely. But, I think your point on DCC and Turning Stone Classic is actually validating my point more than yours. While prestigious, after all they both are called “Classics”, and are apparently the tiny minority of pro tour events with this limitation - yes? As far as sanctioning orgs, large events, pro tour etc - outside of these 2 big Classics venues, indeed its really just mostly leagues/tourney’s that are oriented more to junior players that have these limitations, right?

Your suggested jump rules are innovative, but limiting them only certain scenarios to me seems even more bizarre than just banning them. Personally I’d vote for the current binary paradigm, use them or ban them. Middle ground seems fraught with issues… i feel the same way when folks bastardize 9b rules to be more like 10b…

If possible, I would enjoy a response to my earlier question, when were the bca/wpa cue specs that permit use of jumpers, breakers & extensions implemented? And before that, were short jumpers in violation of any older cue size/weight standards/rules? If not, it seems hard pressed for folks to have such a stark delineation for jump cues, vs the other specialized cue features in common modern use.

Obviously Earl is the man, but his position on jump cues seems sort of hilarious to me, given all the various permutations of personal pool gear he’s played with…

Cheers!

 

[ShootingArts]

Ah, I remember those days well, approximately 1980-81. In fact, the young Earl Strickland had just one peer when it came to the full cue jump shot and that was Sammy Jones of California, who'd become the husband of future Hall of Famer Loree Jon Jones. Very few other players even tried full cue jumps.

The Earl Strickland / Sammy Jones situation brought back memories of Luther Lassiter who was, with reverence, known for pushing out into a shot that he could make but you couldn't (Nick Varner has suggested that Lassiter was the straightest shooter in the game's history).

Earl and Sammy were the fathers of the jump shot, and there's little doubt that their proficiency activated the development of the jump cue. There's a certain irony in the fact that Earl strongly objected to the introduction of the jump cue when it began to come into fairly common use about 25-30 years ago.

Those were the days.

Thanks! I either didn't ever know about or didn't remember Sammy Jones and his jump shot skills.

I thought the whole idea was to push to a shot you were better at than your opponent. Considering LL, that was most tough shots! I like the legends events on youtube. They catch some true legends even if well past their best days. I think I have seen them all multiple times but still watch again now and then.

Hu

Hu

 

[sjm]

Hi Stu,

Thx for the nice discourse. Sorry, my use of “authoritarian” was indeed too strong, your post just came off that way to me, but you’re always respectful & thoughtful, and that was over stating it.

In spirit of clarification & continued discourse, a few nits/observations.

I didn’t state or mean what you implied I did - “suggestion that the jump cue was invented because full cue jumps were tough on the equipment is incorrect”. I was simply suggesting that to some extent that benefit is also there for jump cues, similar to beak cues. In scenarios where jumping is allowed, for folks with less than great jump skills, use of a jump cue will likely bring better results for the table than attempting it with a house cue. Obviously not a major factor though…

With regard to the pro scene, indeed I don’t follow closely. But, I think your point on DCC and Turning Stone Classic is actually validating my point more than yours. While prestigious, after all they both are called “Classics”, and are apparently the tiny minority of pro tour events with this limitation - yes? As far as sanctioning orgs, large events, pro tour etc - outside of these 2 big Classics venues, indeed its really just mostly leagues/tourney’s that are oriented more to limiting jumps, right?

Your suggested jump rules are innovative, but limiting them only certain scenarios to me seems even more bizarre than just banning them. Personally I’d vote for the current binary paradigm, use them or ban them. Middle ground seems fraught with issues…

Thanks for your many clarifications. It is clear that I misinterpreted some of what you wrote. I really don't think we're far apart in our philosophies here.

If possible, I would enjoy a response to my earlier question, when were the bca/wpa cue specs that permit use of jumpers, breakers & extensions implemented? And before that, were short jumpers in violation of any older cue size/weight standards/rules? If not, it seems hard pressed for folks to have such a stark delineation for jump cues, vs the other specialized cue features in common use.

Obviously Earl is the man, but his position on jump cues seems sort of hilarious to me, given all the various permutations of personal pool gear he’s played with…

Cheers!

I cannot answer this, because I just can't remember these details.

I can, however, share a few things of relevance and, if you'll permit me, engage in some speculation. There was a time when you were not permitted to use more than two cues in competition, but this soon evolved into a three-cue rule (player, break, and jump).

On the subject of the cue extension, in the 1990s, you often saw players using a plastic vacuum tube as a means of lengthening their cue. Cue sticks having more than two pieces were rare but were permitted, so I don't think the advent of the extension required a rules update. I never saw a cue extension before about 2000, and by about 2002, cue makers had become very proficient in developing cue extensions that didn't severely compromise a cue stick's balance. I recall chatting with Dan DiLiberto when cue extensions first came into vogue. He amusingly commented "I wish they had those when I was competing."

As for jumping, one thing I saw more than occasionally was players unscrewing their two-piece cues and using the shaft alone to execute a jump. I don't think that any specifications applied at the time that would have disallowed it, and I'd say this kind of jump was quite common in the 1990s. To an onlooker, it looked ridiculous and probably figured in the establishment of the 40" minimum rule, which is still in use today.

FYI, the BCA, America's delegate to the WPA, only came into existence in the late 1980's, so they were not the ones presiding over the jump cue debate when it first became relevant. It is more likely that the rules were set by the pro tours of that period, with the most important back then being the PBT, on which each of Earl Strickland, Buddy Hall, Mike Sigel, Jim Rempe, Ralf Souquet, Oliver Ortmann, Francisco Bustamante, Steve Mizerak, Jose Parica, Efren Reyes, Johnny Archer, Kim Davenport, CJ Wiley and Nick Varner competed in the 1980s.

So, while I'm unable to answer your questions, I hope I've offered you some of the relevant history behind the evolution of the rules in effect today. To get the whole story, you'll likely need to touch base with somebody who was competing 30-35 years ago.

 

[phreaticus]

Thanks for your many clarifications. It is clear that I misinterpreted some of what you wrote. I really don't think we're far apart in our philosophies here.

I cannot answer this, because I just can't remember these details.

I can, however, share a few things of relevance and, if you'll permit me, engage in some speculation. There was a time when you were not permitted to use more than two cues in competition, but this soon evolved into a three-cue rule (player, break, and jump).

On the subject of the cue extension, in the 1990s, you often saw players using a plastic vacuum tube as a means of lengthening their cue. Cue sticks having more than two pieces were rare but were permitted, so I don't think the advent of the extension required a rules update. I never saw a cue extension before about 2000, and by about 2002, cue makers had become very proficient in developing cue extensions that didn't severely compromise a cue stick's balance. I recall chatting with Dan DiLiberto when cue extensions first came into vogue. He amusingly commented "I wish they had those when I was competing."

As for jumping, one thing I saw more than occasionally was players unscrewing their two-piece cues and using the shaft alone to execute a jump. I don't think that any specifications applied at the time that would have disallowed it, and I'd say this kind of jump was quite common in the 1990s. To an onlooker, it looked ridiculous and probably figured in the establishment of the 40" minimum rule, which is still in use today.

FYI, the BCA, America's delegate to the WPA, only came into existence in the late 1980's, so they were not the ones presiding over the jump cue debate when it first became relevant. It is more likely that the rules were set by the pro tours of that period, with the most important back then being the PBT, on which each of Earl Strickland, Buddy Hall, Mike Sigel, Jim Rempe, Ralf Souquet, Oliver Ortmann, Francisco Bustamante, Steve Mizerak, Jose Parica, Efren Reyes, Johnny Archer, Kim Davenport, CJ Wiley and Nick Varner competed in the 1980s.

So, while I'm unable to answer your questions, I hope I've offered you some of the relevant history behind the evolution of the rules in effect today. To get the whole story, you'll likely need to touch base with somebody who was competing 30-35 years ago.

Thx for the very informative post! Love it when discussions focus on real world pool stuff. Much appreciated

 

[sjm]

I'm pleading guilty to hijacking this thread, and I'm disappointed in myself, as I try hard not to do that. I'm sorry.

Getting back to Josh Filler and his almost unprecedented level of sustained excellence, one thing I wonder is whether the return of Fedor Gorst, who seems to me a legend in the making, will make Josh raise his already amazing level once again. It seems likely to me.

Having a credible rival, even a nemesis, forces even the greatest players to raise their games. As we've often noted on the forum about Jean Balukas, the fact that she never had somebody who could push her means she may have possessed a greater gear than we ever got to see. Yes, while it sounds impossible, Jean might have been even stronger. Allison Fisher had Karen Corr, and that helped her in reaching her highest possible level. It also brought out the best in Karen Corr, and each is rightly in the BCA Hall of Fame.

I can't wait until we get Fedor back. I have a feeling he and Filler will push each other to a level of excellence that will really wow us and that one day, just like Allison and Karen, they'll be in the BCA Hall of Fame together.

 

[btal]

Filler is nearly in the same league as far as I'm concerned. He runs out like water, being totally undisturbed by length or angle of a shot. If there is one difference, it was Earl's ability to learn and adapt to the break on each table, thus making it possible for him to string racks. He was the first player I ever saw warm up for a match just by shooting break shot after break shot. Once he had the break down you were dead meat. I even had the distinct pleasure of experiencing it twice in my truncated pool career. In our first match in Memphis I was 3-2 down and feeling okay when I missed a long shot. I sat down for the next six racks! When I shot again I was kicking at a ball. I actually won a game when he was on the hill (a lucky combo on the nine) and he beat me 11-3. Then we played a Bank Pool match in Kentucky, my best game. He beat me 3-0 and I got one ball total in the match, if you can call it that. It was over in something like twenty minutes!

" ....... it was Earl's ability to learn and adapt to the break on each table, thus making it possible for him to string racks. He was the first player I ever saw warm up for a match just by shooting break shot after break shot. Once he had the break down you were dead meat." ............. Yep. I remember Ronnie W. telling me this same truth. Back in the day with the old wood racks on worn tables this inexplicable talent was astounding. Repeat. Out. Repeat. out. Repeat. Out. etcetera ....... No one else could do what Earl did! The players were 100% aware of it!
Regards Jay
Bob

 

[sjm]

" ....... it was Earl's ability to learn and adapt to the break on each table, thus making it possible for him to string racks. He was the first player I ever saw warm up for a match just by shooting break shot after break shot. Once he had the break down you were dead meat." ............. Yep. I remember Ronnie W. telling me this same truth. Back in the day with the old wood racks on worn tables this inexplicable talent was astounding. Repeat. Out. Repeat. out. Repeat. Out. etcetera ....... No one else could do what Earl did! The players were 100% aware of it!
Regards Jay
Bob

Yes, George Breedlove, who was also known for having an amazing break, said the same of Earl. He was stringing multiple racks at a time when it was far less common than today.

I think today's players need not be as proficient as the players of that generation. As they don't compete on worn cloth in the big events anymore, I feel the equipment is more consistent than back in the day. Filler strings racks nearly as well as Earl did, but new cloth and frequent use of the template has made it a little easier. Of course, tighter pockets have made it harder.

 

[westcoast]

I'm pleading guilty to hijacking this thread, and I'm disappointed in myself, as I try hard not to do that. I'm sorry.

Getting back to Josh Filler and his almost unprecedented level of sustained excellence, one thing I wonder is whether the return of Fedor Gorst, who seems to me a legend in the making, will make Josh raise his already amazing level once again. It seems likely to me.

Having a credible rival, even a nemesis, forces even the greatest players to raise their games. As we've often noted on the forum about Jean Balukas, the fact that she never had somebody who could push her, she may have possessed a greater gear than we ever got to see. Yes, while it sounds impossible, Jean might possibly have been even stronger. Allison Fisher had Karen Corr, and that helped her in reaching her highest possible level. It also brought out the best in Karen Corr, and each is rightly in the BCA Hall of Fame.

I can't wait until we get Fedor back. I have a feeling he and Filler will push each other to a level of excellence that will really wow us and that one day, just like Allison and Karen, they'll be in the BCA Hall of Fame together.

Gorst is undoubtedly a great player, but there is no shortage of great players besides him that are able to enter most tournaments- Ouschan, Shaw, Shane, etc.

I don't think Gorst's absence will hinder Filler fulfilling his potential much.

 

[sjm]

Gorst is undoubtedly a great player, but there is no shortage of great players besides him that are able to enter most tournaments- Ouschan, Shaw, Shane, etc.

I don't think Gorst's absence will hinder Filler fulfilling his potential much.

Well said, but with these two players, who are both under 25, I envision an amazing rivalry that could last a very long time. At least for this fan, it's exciting to think about.

 

[westcoast]

Well said, but with these two players, who are both under 25, I envision an amazing rivalry that could last a very long time. At least for this fan, it's exciting to think about.

that's true- they are very close in age. Maybe some other talented young players will come out of the woodwork- hopefully an American as it doesn't look great after Shane gets older.

Seems like Poland is a hotbed of European pool talent for some reason.

 

[btal]

Wiktor Zieliński would be my pick.

 

[sjm]

Wiktor Zieliński would be my pick.

Fine player, but World 10-ball champion Szewczyk is probably playing just slightly better than Zielinski at present. Throw in Fortunski and Poland has three guys who are capable of winning a major. As we know, there are several other highly capable Polish players.

 

[btal]

Fine player, but World 10-ball champion Szewczyk is probably playing just slightly better than Zielinski at present. Throw in Fortunski and Poland has three guys who are capable of winning a major. As we know, there are several other highly capable Polish players.

Yes, quite the stable of players. I personally like Wiktor's and Fortunski's speed of play. Wiktor's pool history and his 2022 accomplishments, along with his age of 21, could reveal a higher future ceiling. Of course ..... I have deep Polish roots. LOL

 

[jay helfert]

Thanks! I either didn't ever know about or didn't remember Sammy Jones and his jump shot skills.

I thought the whole idea was to push to a shot you were better at than your opponent. Considering LL, that was most tough shots! I like the legends events on youtube. They catch some true legends even if well past their best days. I think I have seen them all multiple times but still watch again now and then.

Hu

Hu

Sammy could put the cue ball within an eighth of an inch of the object ball and using a shaft only jump straight up over that ball! I saw him do that many times and it never ceased to amaze me. To this day I've never resorted to using a jump cue (I've only played in a handful of small tournaments in the last five years) in my life. I always could kick accurately and hit the object ball consistently. I'm somewhat ambivalent about the use of jump cues, taking the position they are okay for rotation games but not for One Pocket. I can live with them or without them.